Published: Sunday, February 3, 2013 at 3:35 p.m.

Last Modified: Sunday, February 3, 2013 at 3:35 p.m.

The meetings used to be packed. Dozens of people came and stayed late. They were passionate about controlling Sarasota County's rapid growth — and avoiding past mistakes.

Facts

PROPOSED CHANGES TO 2050

• Eliminate "fiscal neutrality" monitoring reports that force developers to pay more if their projects generate greater demand for government services than expected, and instead require one analysis at the beginning of a project.

• Require less undeveloped open space in some circumstances and make the definitions of open space more flexible.

• Lift provisions that requires central downtown shopping districts and allow more commercial strips on the periphery of developments along major roads.

• Reevaluate the entire "new urbanism" concept of development that requires compact, walkable communities clustered around a commercial core.

Facts

THE STORY SO FAR

In 2004 Sarasota County leaders finalized development regulations that allow large new communities in rural areas, but only if they follow strict guidelines.

What's new: Last week county leaders discussed loosening those regulations to help spur development.

What's next: Public hearings will be held over the next 90 days.

That was not the scene last week when Sarasota County commissioners revisited development regulations for rural areas. Only two members of the public spoke against loosening the restrictions. The commissioners were finished in time for dinner.

The light attendance at Wednesday's meeting may be another sign of the dramatic and swift shift in the development debate.

Just talking about allowing new mega-developments east of Interstate 75 was politically perilous in Sarasota County a few years ago. The county had a reputation for environmental protection, strict development guidelines and staunch protection of its urban growth boundary.

But a new group of commissioners has not been shy about pushing for growth — in rural areas or elsewhere — to reignite the local economy after the Great Recession. Some campaigned on that pledge.

Times have changed, they note. People want the jobs that development brings. They may be willing to scale back some of the restrictions in the county's 2050 growth management plan.

"We're not seeing this groundswell of opposition," said Commissioner Joe Barbetta.

Critics of proposed revisions to the 2050 plan see things differently. While acknowledging public sentiment may have shifted, they say the biggest change is a re-made County Commission that is more sympathetic to developers and less concerned about soliciting input from the community.

Growth control advocates are upset that the county held 10 meetings with developers to gather criticism of the 2050 plan before Wednesday's discussion.

County planners will use the next 90 days for input from the general public, but some believe the process should have included more voices from the start.

Diverse points of view

A diverse group of residents joined in the 1990s, when formal discussions on allowing more development in rural areas first began.

The "multi-stakeholders group" included developers, environmentalists and other civic leaders. It met for years and the members often engaged in fierce debates, said Jono Miller, a long-time local environmental activist who helped run the meetings.

Miller said having people who disagreed at the same table was important.

"Those meetings are long and contentious, and they drag on, but what happens is you get to know these people" and can better appreciate their perspective, Miller said.

He added, "I guess some people don't like that. They think it's just easier to use their political muscle to get their way."

Some see the current process as more one-sided, and driven by political connections.

Dan Lobeck, an attorney who often tangles with developers, has been outspoken in arguing that the push to loosen development regulations is more about appeasing campaign donors than responding to public sentiment.

Some of the largest chunks of property governed by 2050 are owned by developer Pat Neal and the group behind Lakewood Ranch. Both contributed large sums to County Commission campaigns during the 2012 election.

Lobeck has been so aggressive in raising this point, he drew censure from the commission chair last Wednesday.

"Nobody bothers to point out you had so many teachers, so many policemen" donate to your campaign, said newly elected commissioner Charles Hines, whose campaign contributions from developers were highlighted by Lobeck Wednesday. "It's being used in a way that's not right. It's offensive and it breaches the civility code."

Hines said such accusations turn what should be a serious policy discussion into something "personal."

"It does not help the process," he said. "It polarizes everybody."

Hines said there is still plenty of time to gather input from the public on 2050, and he intends to keep an open mind. The revisions "don't need to be done tomorrow," he said.

But there is ample evidence that 2050 is not working, Hines said. The plan was designed to open large landholdings, most east of I-75 and zoned agricultural, to development. In exchange, it requires the new communities to be compact and walkable, while preserving large amounts of open space.

Only one development — a 1,999-home project in Venice — has started construction under the 2050 guidelines since they were finalized in 2004.

Some commissioners take that as a sign the rules are too strict. Others say the economy held back development, not regulations.

Barbetta, who, as a planning commissioner voted against the 2050 plan nearly a decade ago, said Sarasota County has a lot to gain from listening to developers' concerns.

"We're fortunate that we have people willing to put money into the community," he said, adding that by not doing more to accommodate them "we're losing that tax base, we're losing those jobs, we're losing that sales tax, we're just losing that whole vibrancy."

Others say the plan just needs more time.

"It's called 2050 and last time I looked this is only 2013," Miller said. "Whether something works in the first few years, it's supposed to be a long range plan."

<p>The meetings used to be packed. Dozens of people came and stayed late. They were passionate about controlling Sarasota County's rapid growth — and avoiding past mistakes.</p><div class="art_item art_item_inset art_item_facts">
<h3>Facts</h3>
<h4>THE STORY SO FAR</h4>
<p>In 2004 Sarasota County leaders finalized development regulations that allow large new communities in rural areas, but only if they follow strict guidelines.<br><br><b>What's new: </b>Last week county leaders discussed loosening those regulations to help spur development.<br><br><b>What's next: </b>Public hearings will be held over the next 90 days.</p>
</div>
<p>That was not the scene last week when Sarasota County commissioners revisited development regulations for rural areas. Only two members of the public spoke against loosening the restrictions. The commissioners were finished in time for dinner.</p><p>The light attendance at Wednesday's meeting may be another sign of the dramatic and swift shift in the development debate.</p><p>Just talking about allowing new mega-developments east of Interstate 75 was politically perilous in Sarasota County a few years ago. The county had a reputation for environmental protection, strict development guidelines and staunch protection of its urban growth boundary.</p><p>But a new group of commissioners has not been shy about pushing for growth — in rural areas or elsewhere — to reignite the local economy after the Great Recession. Some campaigned on that pledge. </p><p>Times have changed, they note. People want the jobs that development brings. They may be willing to scale back some of the restrictions in the county's 2050 growth management plan.</p><p>"We're not seeing this groundswell of opposition," said Commissioner Joe Barbetta.</p><p>Critics of proposed revisions to the 2050 plan see things differently. While acknowledging public sentiment may have shifted, they say the biggest change is a re-made County Commission that is more sympathetic to developers and less concerned about soliciting input from the community.</p><p>Growth control advocates are upset that the county held 10 meetings with developers to gather criticism of the 2050 plan before Wednesday's discussion. </p><p>County planners will use the next 90 days for input from the general public, but some believe the process should have included more voices from the start.</p><p><b>Diverse points of view</b></p><p>A diverse group of residents joined in the 1990s, when formal discussions on allowing more development in rural areas first began.</p><p>The "multi-stakeholders group" included developers, environmentalists and other civic leaders. It met for years and the members often engaged in fierce debates, said Jono Miller, a long-time local environmental activist who helped run the meetings.</p><p>Miller said having people who disagreed at the same table was important.</p><p>"Those meetings are long and contentious, and they drag on, but what happens is you get to know these people" and can better appreciate their perspective, Miller said.</p><p>He added, "I guess some people don't like that. They think it's just easier to use their political muscle to get their way."</p><p>Some see the current process as more one-sided, and driven by political connections.</p><p>Dan Lobeck, an attorney who often tangles with developers, has been outspoken in arguing that the push to loosen development regulations is more about appeasing campaign donors than responding to public sentiment.</p><p>Some of the largest chunks of property governed by 2050 are owned by developer Pat Neal and the group behind Lakewood Ranch. Both contributed large sums to County Commission campaigns during the 2012 election.</p><p>Lobeck has been so aggressive in raising this point, he drew censure from the commission chair last Wednesday.</p><p>"Nobody bothers to point out you had so many teachers, so many policemen" donate to your campaign, said newly elected commissioner Charles Hines, whose campaign contributions from developers were highlighted by Lobeck Wednesday. "It's being used in a way that's not right. It's offensive and it breaches the civility code."</p><p>Lobeck is unapologetic. </p><p>"I think it's absolutely fair," he said. "I think it's fundamental to raise the issue of undue influence by developers."</p><p>Hines said such accusations turn what should be a serious policy discussion into something "personal."</p><p>"It does not help the process," he said. "It polarizes everybody."</p><p>Hines said there is still plenty of time to gather input from the public on 2050, and he intends to keep an open mind. The revisions "don't need to be done tomorrow," he said.</p><p>But there is ample evidence that 2050 is not working, Hines said. The plan was designed to open large landholdings, most east of I-75 and zoned agricultural, to development. In exchange, it requires the new communities to be compact and walkable, while preserving large amounts of open space.</p><p>Only one development — a 1,999-home project in Venice — has started construction under the 2050 guidelines since they were finalized in 2004.</p><p> Some commissioners take that as a sign the rules are too strict. Others say the economy held back development, not regulations.</p><p>Barbetta, who, as a planning commissioner voted against the 2050 plan nearly a decade ago, said Sarasota County has a lot to gain from listening to developers' concerns.</p><p>"We're fortunate that we have people willing to put money into the community," he said, adding that by not doing more to accommodate them "we're losing that tax base, we're losing those jobs, we're losing that sales tax, we're just losing that whole vibrancy."</p><p>Others say the plan just needs more time.</p><p>"It's called 2050 and last time I looked this is only 2013," Miller said. "Whether something works in the first few years, it's supposed to be a long range plan."</p>